Winning rate in the full-information best choice problem

Abstract: Following a long-standing suggestion by Gilbert and Mosteller, we derive an explicit formula for the asymptotic winning rate in the full-information problem of the best choice.

\section{Introduction}

Let $X_1,X_2\ldots$  be a sequence of independent  uniform $[0,1]$ random variables.
The full-information best choice  problem, as introduced
by Gilbert and Mosteller \cite{GM},
asks one to find a stopping rule $\tau_n$  to maximise the probability
\begin{equation}\label{stop}
P_n(\tau):=\mathbb P(X_{\tau}=\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n))
\end{equation}
over all stopping rules $\tau\leq n$ adapted to the sequence $(X_i)$.
The name `full information' was attached to the problem to stress that the observer
learns the exact values of $X_i$'s and knows their distribution, in contrast
to the `no information' problem where only the relative ranks of observations are available
(see \cite{SamSurv} for a survey and history of the best choice or `secretary' problems).
Because  the stopping criterion (\ref{stop}) depends only on ranks of  the observations,
the instance of uniform distribution covers, in fact, the  general case of sampling from arbitrary
continuous distribution.

\par Gilbert and Mosteller showed that
the optimal stopping rule is
of the form
$$\tau_n=\min\{i:\,X_i=\max(X_1,\ldots,X_i)~{\rm and~}X_i\geq d_{n-i}\},$$
where  $d_k$ is a sequence of  decision numbers defined by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{d}
\sum_{j=1}^k (d_k^{-j}-1)/j=1 {~~\rm for~~}k\geq 1,~~{\rm and~~}d_0=0.
\end{equation}
They also  proved that $d_k\uparrow 1$ in such a way that
$k(1-d_k)\to c$ for $c=0.804\ldots$ the solution to the transcendental equation
\begin{equation}\label{c}
\int_0^c x^{-1}({e^x-1})\,{\rm d}x=1\,,
\end{equation}
and they provided a numerical evidence that the optimal probability of the best choice
$P_n^*:=P_n(\tau_n)$
converges to a limit $P^*=0.580164\ldots$ The limiting value was justified by different methods
in the subsequent work \cite{BG, GnFI, SamUn, SamSurv}
 along with the explicit formula
\begin{equation}\label{limpr}
P^*={\rm e}^{-c}+({\rm e}^c-c-1)\int_1^\infty {\rm e}^{-cx}x^{-1}\,{\rm d} x\,
\end{equation}
due to Samuels \cite{SamUn}.

\par Refinements and generalisations of the results of \cite{GM} appeared in
 \cite{GnFI, GnBC, payoff, HillKennedy, Pet, Por1, Sam-Cahn}. Still,
one interesting feature of the optimal stopping rule  seems to have not been
discussed in the literature.
We mean the tiny
Section 3e in \cite{GM} where Gilbert and Mosteller say:
``One would correctly anticipate that as $n$ increases, the probability of winning at a given draw tends to zero.
On the other hand,
$\,n\,\mathbb P({\rm win~at~draw}~i)$ tends to a constant for
$i/n$ tending to a constant $\lambda\,$".
 Spelled out in detail, Gilbert and Mosteller claimed  existence of the limit
\begin{equation}\label{conv}
w(t)=\lim_{i,n\to\infty,\,i/n\to t}
 n\,\mathbb P(\tau_n=i,\,X_i=\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n))
\end{equation}
where $t\in [0,1]$ stands for their $\lambda$. Such a function may be called the asymptotic
{\it winning rate} since it tells us how the chance of correct recognising the maximum
is distrubuted over the time, hence
the total probability of the best choice must satisfy
$$P^*=\int_0^1 w(t)\,{\rm d} t\,.$$
In this paper, we prove the conjecture of \cite{GM} regarding the convergence
and we derive an explicit formula for the winning rate (\ref{conv}). In fact, we show more: the function $w$ appears as the
exact winning rate in a continuous-time
version of the best choice problem associated with a planar Poisson process, as developed in
\cite{GnFI, GnBC, Sam3}.

\section{The Poisson framework}
We start by recalling the setup from \cite{GnFI, GnBC}. Consider a homogeneous planar Poisson process (PPP) in the
semi-infinite strip
$R=[0,1]\times \,]-\infty,0]$, with Lebesgue measure as intensity.
The generic atom $a=(t,x)\in R$ of the PPP is understood as score $x$
observed at time $t$ .
Let ${\cal F}=({\cal F}_t, ~t\in [0,1])$ be the filtration with ${\cal F}_t$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by
the PPP restricted to $[0,t]\times  \,]-\infty,0]$.
We say that an atom $a=(t,x)$ of the PPP is a {\it record} if there are no
other PPP-atoms north-west of $a$. The maximum of the PPP is an atom $a^*=(t^*,x^*)$ with the largest $x$-value.
Alternatively, the maximum $a^*$ can  be defined as the last record of the PPP, that is the record with the largest $t$-value.
For $\tau$ a ${\cal F}$-adapted stopping rule with values in $[0,1]$,
the performance of $\tau^*$ is defined as the probability of
the event $\{\tau=t^*\}$, interpreted as the best choice from the PPP.
The associated best choice problem amounts to maximising probability of the event $\{\tau=t^*\}$.

\par In a poissonised version of the Gilbert-Mosteller problem the observations sampled from
the $[0,1]$ uniform distribution arrive
on $[0,\ell]$ at epochs of a rate 1 Poisson process \cite{BG, Bojd, GnSak, Sak}. This is equivalent to
the PPP setup with background space $[0,\ell]\times[0,1]$, which can be
mapped  linearly onto $[0,1]\times[-\ell,0]$ so that the componentwise order of points is preserved.
Now, the optimal stopping in
$[0,1]\times[-\ell,0]$
fits in the framework with the background space $R$
by a minor modification of the
stopping criterion:
a  stopping rule $\tau$  adapted to $\cal F$ is evaluated
by the probability of the event $\{\tau=t^*, a^*>-\ell\}$ that stopping occurs at the maximum atom
and above $-\ell$. In this sense we shall speak of a {\it constrained} best choice problem.

\par Let $\Gamma=\{(t,x)\in R: -x(1-t)<c\}$ where $c$ is as in (\ref{c}).
It is known \cite{GnFI} that the optimal stopping rule is the first time (if any)
when the record process enters $\Gamma$, that is
$$\tau^*=\min\{t: {\rm~ there~is~a~record~}a=(t,x)\in \Gamma\}$$
(or $\tau^*=1$ if no such $t\in [0,1[$ exists).
Similarly,  the optimal stopping rule for the constrained problem is the first time (if any)
when the record process enters $\Gamma(\ell):=\Gamma\cap ([0,1]\times[0,-\ell])$.
\par Let
$$g(\ell,t):=\mathbb P(\tau^*=t^*,\, t^*<t,\, x^*>-\ell)$$
be the probability that $\tau^*$ wins by stopping above $-\ell$ and before $t$ and let
$$g(\infty,t):=\mathbb P(\tau^*=t^*,\, t^*<t).$$
By the above relation between the constrained and unconstrained problems we have
$$g(\ell,t)=g(\infty,t)~~~{\rm for~~~}0\leq t\leq (1-c/\ell)_+\,.$$
The {\it winning rate} in the Poisson problem is defined as
$$w(t)=\partial_t\, g(\infty,t).$$

\section{Computing the rate}

Because the atoms south-west of $(x,-\ell)$ fall outside the stopping region $\Gamma(\ell)$ we have
$\partial_\ell\,g(\ell,t)=0$ and
$g(\infty,t)=g(c/(1-t),t)$ for $\ell>s/(1-t)$. To determine $\partial_\ell\,g(\ell,t)$ for $\ell>c/(1-t)$
consider two rectangles $R_1=[0,t]\times[-\ell,0]$ and $R_2=[0,t]\times[-\ell+\delta,0]$ with small $\delta>0$.
The optimal constrained stopping rules in $R_1$ and $R_2$ stop before $t$ at distinct atoms if and only if
the record process enters $\Gamma({\ell})$ at some atom $a_0=(\sigma,\xi)\in [(1-c/\ell)_+\,,t]\times
[-\ell,-\ell+\delta]$.  Then stopping at $a_0\in R_1\setminus R_2$ is a win if $a_0=a^*$, which occurs with probability
$$p_1={\rm e}^{-\ell}\ell(t-(1-c/\ell)_+){\delta\over\ell}+o(\delta)=
{\rm e}^{-\ell}(t-(1-c/\ell)_+){\delta}+o(\delta).$$
On the other hand, stopping in $R_2$ is a win (and stopping at $a_0$ is a loss) if $a_0$ is folowed by some
$k>0$ atoms in $[\sigma,1]\times[-\ell,0]$, the leftmost of these $k$ atoms appears within $[\sigma,t]\times[-\ell,0]$
and it is the overall maximum $a^*$
which is an event of probability
$$p_2={\rm e}^{-\ell}\sum_{k=1}^\infty{c^{k+1}\over(k+1)!}\left[
1-(k+1){(t-(1-c/\ell)_+)\over c/\ell}\,\,{(1-t)^k\over (c/\ell)^k}-{(1-t)^{k+1}\over (c/\ell)^{k+1}}
\right]{1\over k}\,{\delta\over \ell}+o(\delta).$$
It follows that
$$\partial_\ell\,g(\ell,t)=\lim_{\delta\to 0}{p_1-p_2\over \delta}={\rm e}^{-\ell}\int\limits_{(1-c/\ell)_+}^t
\left(
1-\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left[{\ell^k(1-\sigma)^k\over k!\,k}-{\ell^k(1-t)^k\over k!\,k}
\right]
\right){\rm d}\sigma\,.$$
Now, computing the mixed second derivative $\partial_{\ell\,t} \,g(\ell,t)$ and integrating
in $\ell$ from $0$  to $c/(1-t)$ we obtain the winning rate in the Poisson problem, which is our main result.

\begin{proposition} The winning rate is given by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{w}
w(t)=-{\rm e}^{-c}+{{\rm e}^{-ct}-{\rm e}^{-ct/(1-t)}\over t}+
{e^{-c t}-te^{-c}\over 1-t}+
{c\over 1-t}
\left\{ I\left({c\over1-t}\,,\,c\right)-I\left({ct\over 1-t}\,,\,ct\right)\right\} ,
 \end{equation}
where $c$ is as in {\rm (\ref{c})} and for $0<s<t$
$$I(t,s)=\int_s^t \xi^{-1}{{\rm e}^{-\xi}}\,{\rm d}\xi\,.$$
 \end{proposition}
\noindent
The boundary values of $w$ are $w(0)=1-{\rm e}^{-c}=0.5526\ldots$ and $w(1)={\rm e}^{-c}=0.4473\ldots$,
in accordance with \cite[Fig. 3]{GM}.
A {\tt Mathematica}-drawn graph of {\rm (\ref{w})} exhibits a  curve identical to that in
\cite[Fig 3.]{GM}.

\par The special value (\ref{c}) of $c$ was not used in the argument, hence
the right side of the formula (\ref{w}) gives the winning rate for
every stopping rule defined
by a stopping region  like $\Gamma$ but with arbitrary positive value of the constant in place of $c$.
We also note that
the winning rate in the constrained problem coincides with $w(t)$ for $t<(1-c/\ell)_+$.

\section{Embedding and convergence}

It remains to show that  $w$ given by (\ref{w}) is indeed the limiting value for the finite-$n$ problem
in (\ref{conv}).
To that end, we will exploit the embedding  technique from \cite{GnFI}.

\par With $n$ fixed, divide $R$ in strips $J_i=[(i-1)/n, \,i /n[\,\,\times\,\,]\!-\infty,0]$,
$i=1,\ldots,n$. Consider a sequence
${\cal Y}_n=((T_i,Y_i), \,i=1,\ldots,n)$ where $(T_i,Y_i)$ is an atom with the largest
$x$-component within the strip $J_i$.
Observe that the point process of records in ${\cal Y}_n$ is
a subset of the set of records of the PPP in $R$,
in particular $\max Y_i=x^*$.
By  homogeneity of the PPP we have
$T_1,Y_1,\ldots,T_n,Y_n$
jointly independent, with each $T_i$  uniformly distributed on $[(i-1)/n, \,i /n[$
and each $Y_i$ exponentially distributed on $]-\infty,0]$ with rate $1/n$.
It follows that the discrete-time optimal stopping problem of recognising the maximum in ${\cal Y}_n$
is equivalent to the Gilbert-Mosteller problem with exponentially distributed observations.

\par Let $\hat{\tau}_n$ be the optimal stopping rule for recognising the maximum in ${\cal Y}_n$.
We shall view $\hat{\tau}_n$ as a strategy
for choosing the maximum of PPP with the additional option of
{\it partial return} meaning that $\hat{\tau}_n$ assumes values in $[0,1]$, that
$$\{(i-1)/n< \hat{\tau}_n\leq i/n\}\in {\cal F}_{i/n}$$
and that $\{(i-1)/n< \hat{\tau}_n\leq i/n\}$ is associated with the stopping at $(T_i,Y_i)$.
Explicitly, $\hat{\tau}_n$ stops at the first time the sequence of ${\cal Y}_n$-records enters
$$\Gamma_n=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^n ~](i-1)/n,i/n]\times [b_{n-i},0],$$
where $b_k=n\log d_k$ and the $d_k$'s are the decision numbers as in  (\ref{d}).
The partial return option
implies that the winning chance of $\hat{\tau}_n$ is higher than that of
$\tau^*$.

\par Let $a'$ be the last record before $a^*$. One checks easily that $\tau^*$ and $\hat{\tau}$ may differ
only if either $a^*$ or $a'$ hit the domain
$$\Delta_n:=(\Gamma_n\setminus\Gamma) \cup(\Gamma\setminus\Gamma_n).$$
By \cite[Equation (11)]{GnFI} we have $((i-1)/n,b_{n-i})\not\in\Gamma$ and
$(i/n,b_{n-i})\in\Gamma$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. This combined with the fact that
the distribution of $t^*$ is uniform and that of $x^*$ is exponential yields
$$n\,\mathbb P(a^*\in \Delta_n\cap J_i)<\exp\left({-nc\over n-i+1}\right)-\exp\left({-nc\over n-i}\right)=O(n^{-1})$$
uniformly in $i\leq n$. A similar estimate holds also for $a'$, and because

$$\mathbb P((i-1)/n<\hat{\tau}_n\leq i/n)=\mathbb P(\tau_n=i), ~~~w(i/n)=\mathbb P(\tau^*=t^*, a^*\in J_i)+O(n^{-1})$$
(the second since $w$ is smooth on $[0,1]$)
we conclude:

\begin{proposition} As $n\to\infty$ the optimal stoping rule $\tau_n$ satisfies
$$
\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|w(i/n)-n\mathbb P(\tau_n=i,~X_{i}=\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n)|=O(n^{-1}).
$$
where $w$ is given by {\rm (\ref{w})}.
\end{proposition}
\vskip0.5cm


On hamiltonian cycles in Cayley graphs of order pqrs

Abstract: Let $G$ be a finite group. We show that if $|G| = pqrs$, where $p$, $q$, $r$, and $s$ are distinct odd primes, then every connected Cayley graph on $G$ has a hamiltonian cycle.

\section{Introduction}

\begin{defn}[cf.\ {\cite[p.~34]{GodsilRoyle}}]
If $A$ is a subset of a finite group~$G$, then the corresponding \emph{Cayley graph} $\Cay(G; A)$ is the undirected graph whose vertices are the elements of~$G$, and such that vertices $g$ and~$h$ are adjacent if and only if $g^{-1} h \in A \cup A^{-1}$, where $A^{-1} = \{\, a^{-1} \mid a \in A\,\}$.
\end{defn}

It is easy to see (and well known) that $\Cay(G; A)$ is connected if and only if $A$ is a generating set of~$G$. Several papers show that all connected Cayley graphs of certain orders are hamiltonian:

\begin{thm}[see {\cite{M2Slovenian-LowOrder,Maghsoudi-6pq,MorrisWilK} and references therein}] \label{Ham<100}
 Let $A$ be a generating set of a finite group~$G$. If\/ $|G|$ has any of the following forms\/ {\textup(}where $p$, $q$, and~$r$ are distinct primes, and $k$ is a positive integer\/{\textup)}, then\/ $\Cay(G; A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle:
 \begin{multicols}{3}

 \begin{enumerate}

 \item \label{Ham<100-kp}
 $k p$, where $k \le 47$,

 \item \label{Ham<100-kpq}
 $k p q$, where $k \le 7$,

 \item \label{Ham<100-pqr}
 $p q r$,

 \item \label{Ham<100-kp2}
 $k p^2$, where $\le 4$,

 \item \label{Ham<100-kp3}
 $k p^3$, where $k \le 2$.

 \item \label{Ham<100-pk}
 $p^k$.

 \end{enumerate}
 \end{multicols}
\end{thm}

The purpose of this note is to add $pqrs$ to the list when it is odd:

\begin{thm} \label{pqrsodd}
If $p$, $q$, $r$, and~$s$ are distinct odd primes, then every connected Cayley graph of order $p q r s$ has a hamiltonian cycle.
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
To remove \cref{pqrsodd}'s assumption that the primes are odd, it would suffice to show that every connected Cayley graph of order $2pqr$ is hamiltonian (where $p$, $q$, and~$r$ are distinct odd primes). An important first step in this direction was taken by F.\,Maghsoudi \cite{Maghsoudi-6pq}, who handled the case where one of the primes is~$3$.

Unfortunately, current methods do not seem to be sufficient to remove the assumption that $p$, $q$, $r$, and~$s$ are distinct. For example, it is not known that all Cayley graphs of order $9p^2$ or $3p^3$ are hamiltonian (cf.\ \cite{M2Slovenian-LowOrder}).
\end{rem}

\section{Preliminaries}

We use the following fairly standard notation.

\begin{notation}
Let $A$ be a subset of a finite group~$G$.
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item $e$ is the identity element of~$G$,
	\item $|g|$ is the order of an element~$g$ of~$G$.
	\item $G' = [G, G]$ is the \emph{commutator subgroup} of~$G$.
	\item $Z(G) = \{\, z \in G \mid \text{$zg = gz$ for all $g \in G$} \,\}$ is the \emph{centre} of~$G$.
	\item A sequence $(a_i)_{i=1}^m = (a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m)$ of elements of $A \cup A^{-1}$ represents the walk in $\Cay(G; A)$ that visits the vertices
		\[ e, a_1, a_1 a_2, \ldots, a_1 a_2 \cdots a_m . \]
	Also, we use $a^k$ and $a^{-k}$ to represent the sequences $(a,a,\ldots,a)$ and $(a^{-1}, a^{-1}, \ldots,a^{-1})$ of length~$k$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{notation}

Most cases of \cref{pqrsodd} are easy consequences of three known results that are collected in the following \lcnamecref{hamG'}.

\begin{thm}[{\cite[p.~257]{ChenQuimpo}, Durnberger \cite{Durnberger-p}, Morris \cite{Morris-pq}}] \label{hamG'}
Let $A$ be a generating set of a nontrivial finite group~$G$, and assume that\/ $|G|$ is odd. If either
	\begin{enumerate}
	\setcounter{enumi}{-1}
	\item \label{hamG'-1}
	$|G'| = 1$,
	or
	\item \label{hamG'-p}
	$|G'|$ is prime,
	or
	\item \label{hamG'-pq}
	$|G'|$ is the product of\/ $2$ distinct primes,
	\end{enumerate}
then $\Cay(G; A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle.
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
The assumption that $G$ has odd order is not necessary in parts~\pref{hamG'-1} and~\pref{hamG'-p} of \cref{hamG'}.
Steps toward removing this assumption from part~\pref{hamG'-pq} were taken in \cite{GhaderpourMorris} and~\cite{Morris-2p}.
\end{rem}

For ease of reference, we record a few other known facts:

\begin{FGL}[``Factor Group Lemma'' {\cite[\S2.2]{WitteGallian-survey}}] \label{FGL}
Suppose
 \begin{itemize}
 \item $A$ is a subset of the group~$G$,
 \item $N$ is a cyclic, normal subgroup of~$G$,
 \item $C = (a_i)_{i=1}^m$ is a hamiltonian cycle in $\Cay(G/N;A)$,
 and
 \item the voltage $\mathbb{V}(C) = \prod_{i=1}^m a_i$ generates~$N$.
 \end{itemize}
 Then $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m)^{|N|}$ is a hamiltonian cycle in $\Cay(G;A)$.
 \end{FGL}

\begin{lem}[{}{\cite[Lem.~2.27]{M2Slovenian-LowOrder}}] \label{NormalEasy}
 Let $A$ generate a finite group~$G$ and let $b \in A$, such that the subgroup generated by~$b$ is normal in~$G$. If\/ $\Cay \bigl( G/\langle b \rangle ; A \bigr)$ has a
hamiltonian cycle,
 and $\langle b \rangle \cap Z(G) = \{e\}$, then $\Cay(G;A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle.
 \end{lem}

 \begin{lem}[cf.\ {\cite[Thm.~9.4.3, p.~146]{Hall-TheoryOfGroups}} and {\cite[Lem.~2.16]{Maghsoudi-6pq}}] \label{squarefree}
Assume $G$ is a finite group of square-free order. Then
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item \label{squarefree-cyclic}
	$G'$ and $G/G'$ are cyclic,
	\item \label{squarefree-Z(G)}
	$G' \cap Z(G) = \{e\}$,
	and
	\item \label{squarefree-a}
	if $a \in G$, such that $\langle a, G' \rangle = G$, then
		\begin{enumerate}
		\item \label{squarefree-a-commute}
		$a$ does not commute with any nontrivial element of~$G'$,
		and
		\item \label{squarefree-a-order}
		$|a| = |G/G'|$.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

 \begin{prop}[Maghsoudi {\cite[Prop.~3.1]{Maghsoudi-6pq}}] \label{4gen}
 Assume $G$ is a finite group, such that $|G|$ is a product of four distinct primes. If $A$ is an irredundant generating set of~$G$, such that $|A| \ge 4$, then $\Cay(G; A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle.
 \end{prop}

\section{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\cref{pqrsodd}}{the main theorem}}

Let $A$ be an irredundant generating set of a finite group~$G$, such that $|G| = p q r s$. We wish to show that $\Cay(G;A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle.
Although some of the details are new, the line of argument here is quite standard. (See the proofs in~\cite{Maghsoudi-6pq}, for example.)

Let
	\[ \overline G = G/G' . \]
Note that $G$ is solvable by \fullcref{squarefree}{cyclic}, so $G' \neq G$.   Therefore $|G'|$ has at most~$3$ prime factors.  We may assume it has exactly~$3$, for otherwise \cref{hamG'} applies. Hence, we may assume $|G'| = qrs$ (so $|\overline G| = p$). Since $G'$ is cyclic \fullcsee{squarefree}{cyclic}, we have
	\[ G' = \mathcal{C}_q \times \mathcal{C}_r \times \mathcal{C}_s , \]
where $\mathcal{C}_n$ denotes a (multiplicative) cyclic group of order~$n$.
Then each element $\gamma$ of~$G'$ can be written uniquely in the form
	\[ \text{$\gamma = \gamma_q \, \gamma_r \, \gamma_s$,
	\ where $\gamma_q \in \mathcal{C}_q$, $\gamma_r \in \mathcal{C}_r$, and $\gamma_s \in \mathcal{C}_s$}
	. \]

Let $a \in A$, such that $\langle \overline a \rangle = \overline G$. Then $|a| = p$ by \fullcref{squarefree}{a-order}. Let $b$ be another element of~$A$, so we may write $b = a^k \gamma$, where $\gamma \in G'$ (and $0 \le k < p$).

\begin{case}
Assume $A \cap G' \neq \emptyset$.
\end{case}
Then we may assume $b \in G'$. Since $G'$ is cyclic \fullcsee{squarefree}{cyclic}, and it is a standard exercise in undergraduate abstract algebra to show that every subgroup of a cyclic normal subgroup is normal, we know that $\langle b \rangle \triangleleft G$. Let $\widehat G = G/ \langle b \rangle$. Since $|G| = pqrs$ has only~4 prime factors, we know that $|\widehat G|$ has at most~3 prime factors, so we see from part~\pref{Ham<100-kp}, \pref{Ham<100-kpq}, or~\pref{Ham<100-pqr} of \cref{Ham<100} that $\Cay(\widehat G; A)$ has a hamiltonian cycle. Since
	\[ \langle b \rangle \cap Z(G) \subseteq G'  \cap Z(G) = \{e\} \]
\fullcsee{squarefree}{Z(G)},
we can now conclude from \cref{NormalEasy} that $\Cay(G; S)$ has a hamiltonian cycle, as desired.

\begin{case}
Assume $|A| = 2$ \textup(and $A \cap G' = \emptyset$\textup).
\end{case}
This means that $A = \{a,b\}$, so $\langle a,b \rangle = G$. This implies $\langle \gamma \rangle = G'$, so $\gamma_q$, $\gamma_r$, and~$\gamma_s$ are nontrivial. Also, we have $k \ge 1$, since $A \cap G' = \emptyset$. Let
	\[ C = ( \overline b, \overline a^{-(k-1)}, \overline b, \overline a^{p-k-1}), \]
so $C$ is a (well known) hamiltonian cycle in $\Cay(\overline G; \overline A)$. The voltage of~$C$ is
	\[ \mathbb{V}(C) = b a^{-(k-1)} b a^{p-k-1}
		= a^k \gamma \cdot a^{-(k-1)} \cdot a^k \gamma \cdot a^{p-k-1}
		= a^k \cdot \gamma_q \gamma_r \gamma_s \cdot a \cdot \gamma_q \gamma_r \gamma_s \cdot a^{-k-1}
		. \]
Since $|G|$ is odd, we know that $a$ does not invert any nontrivial element of~$G'$, so the two occurrences of~$\gamma_q$ in this product do not cancel each other, and similarly for the occurrences of $\gamma_r$ and~$\gamma_s$. Therefore, this voltage projects nontrivially to $\mathcal{C}_q$, $\mathcal{C}_r$, and~$\mathcal{C}_s$, so it generates~$G'$. Hence, \cref{FGL} provides a hamiltonian cycle in $\Cay(G;A)$.

\begin{case}
Assume $|A| \ge 3$ \textup(and $A \cap G' = \emptyset$\textup).
\end{case}
Let $c$ be a third element of~$A$. We may assume $|A| < 4$ (for otherwise \cref{4gen} applies), so $A = \{a,b,c\}$. Write $c = a^\ell \gamma'$ (with $\gamma' \in G'$).
Since $\langle a,b,c \rangle = G$, we must have $\langle \gamma, \gamma' \rangle = G'$, but the fact that $A$ is irredundant implies $\langle \gamma \rangle \neq G'$ and $\langle \gamma' \rangle \neq G'$.
If $|\gamma| = q$, then we must have $|\gamma'| = rs$. However, this implies $\langle b, c \rangle = G$, which contradicts the fact that the generating set~$A$ is irredundant.
So $|\gamma|$ and $|\gamma'|$ must each have precisely two prime factors. Therefore, we may assume without loss of generality that $|\gamma| = qr$ and $|\gamma'| = rs$. Then
	\begin{align} \label{gammaqrs}
	\text{$\gamma = \gamma_q \, \gamma_r$ and $\gamma' = \gamma'_r \, \gamma'_s$}
	, \end{align}
and each of  $\gamma_q$, $\gamma_r$, $\gamma'_r$, and $\gamma'_s$ is nontrivial.

We may assume $k, \ell \le (p-1)/2$ (by replacing some generators with their inverses, if necessary). We may also assume, without loss of generality, that $\ell \le k$.
(If $k \neq \ell$, this implies $\ell \le (p-3)/2$.)
Also note that $k, \ell \ge 1$, since $A \cap G' = \emptyset$.

\begin{subcase} \label{p=3}
Assume $p = 3$.
\end{subcase}
This implies $\overline a = \overline b = \overline c$, so we have the following two hamiltonian cycles in $\Cay(\overline G; A)$:
	\[ \text{$C_1 = (\overline a, \overline b, \overline c)$ \ and \ $C_2 = (\overline a, \overline c, \overline b)$} . \]
Their voltages are
	\begin{align*}
	\mathbb{V}(C_1)
		&= abc
		= a \cdot a \gamma \cdot a \gamma'
		= a^2 \, \gamma_q \, \gamma_r \, a \, \gamma'_r \, \gamma'_s  \\
\intertext{and}
	\mathbb{V}(C_2)
		&= acb
		= a \cdot a \gamma' \cdot a \gamma
		= a^2 \, \gamma'_r \, \gamma'_s \, a  \, \gamma_q \, \gamma_r
	. \end{align*}
In each of these voltages, there is nothing that could cancel the factor~$\gamma_q$ or the factor~$\gamma'_s$. So both voltages project nontrivially to $\mathcal{C}_q$ and~$\mathcal{C}_s$.

Therefore, we may assume that both voltages project trivially to $\mathcal{C}_r$, for otherwise we have a voltage that projects nontrivially to all three factors, and therefore generates~$G'$, so \cref{FGL} applies. Hence
	\[ a^2 \gamma_r a \gamma'_r = \mathbb{V}(C_1)_r = e = \mathbb{V}(C_2)_r = a^2 \gamma'_r a \gamma_r , \]
so, letting $x = \gamma'_r \, \gamma_r^{-1} $, we have $a x = x a$, which means that $x$ commutes with~$a$. However, we also know from \fullcref{squarefree}{a-commute} that $a$ does not commute with any nontrivial element of~$G'$. Therefore, we must have $x = e$, which means $\gamma'_r = \gamma_r$. Also, since $a$ does not invert any nontrivial element of~$G'$ (since $a$ has odd order), we know that $\gamma_r a \gamma_r \neq a$. Therefore
	\[ \mathbb{V}(C_1)_r
	= a^2 \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma'_r
	= a^2 \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma_r
	\neq a^2 \cdot a
	= e
	. \]
This voltage therefore projects nontrivially to all three factors of~$G'$, so it generates~$G'$. Hence, \cref{FGL} applies.

\begin{subcase} \label{case:notdistinct}
Assume $\overline a$, $\overline b$, and~$\overline c$ are not all distinct.
\end{subcase}
We may assume $\overline a = \overline c$ (which means $\ell = 1$). We may also assume $p \ge 5$, for otherwise \cref{p=3} applies.
Therefore
	\[ p - k \ge p - (p-1)/2 = (p + 1)/2 \ge (5 + 1)/2 = 3 , \]
so we have the following two hamiltonian cycles in $\Cay(\overline G; \overline A)$:
	\[ \text{$C_1 = ( \overline b, \overline a^{-(k-1)}, \overline b, \overline c, \overline a^{p-k-2})$
	\ and \
	$C_2 = ( \overline b, \overline a^{-(k-1)}, \overline b, \overline a, \overline c, \overline a^{p-k-3})$} . \]
Their voltages are
	\begin{align*}
	\mathbb{V}(C_1)
		&= b a^{-(k-1)} b c a^{p-k-2}
		= a^k \gamma \cdot a^{-(k-1)} \cdot a^k \gamma \cdot a \gamma' \cdot a^{p-k-2}
		= a^k \, \gamma_q \gamma_r \, a \, \gamma_q \gamma_r \, a \, \gamma'_r \gamma'_s \, a^{-k-2}
	\intertext{and}
	\mathbb{V}(C_2)
		&= b a^{-(k-1)} b a c a^{p-k-3}
		= a^k \gamma \cdot a^{-(k-1)} \cdot a^k \gamma \cdot a \cdot a \gamma' \cdot a^{p-k-3}
		= a^k \, \gamma_q \gamma_r \, a \, \gamma_q \gamma_r \, a^2 \, \gamma'_r \gamma'_s \, a^{-k-3}
	. \end{align*}
Since $a$ does not invert~$\gamma_q$ (because $a$ has odd order), we see that the two occurrences of~$\gamma_q$ in these voltages cannot cancel each other. Hence, both voltages project nontrivially to~$\mathcal{C}_q$. Also, there is nothing in either voltage that could cancel the single occurrence of~$\gamma'_s$, so both voltages also project nontrivially to~$\mathcal{C}_s$.

Therefore, in order to apply \cref{FGL}, it suffices to show that at least one of these voltages projects nontrivially to~$\mathcal{C}_r$. If not, then both projections are trivial, so
	\begin{align*}
	a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r a \cdot \gamma'_r a \cdot a^{-k-3}
	&= a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r a \gamma'_r a^{-k-2}
	\\&= \mathbb{V}(C_1)_r
	\\&= e
	\\&= \mathbb{V}(C_2)_r
	\\&= a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r a^2 \gamma'_r a^{-k-3}
	\\&= a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r a \cdot a \gamma'_r \cdot a^{-k-3}
	, \end{align*}
which implies $\gamma'_r a = a \gamma'_r$. This contradicts the fact that $a$ does not centralize any nontrivial element of~$G'$ \fullcsee{squarefree}{a-commute}.

\begin{subcase} \label{case:ell}
Assume $\ell \neq (p-3)/2$.
\end{subcase}
We may assume that the preceding case does not apply. In particular, then $\overline b \neq \overline c$, so $k \neq \ell$, so we have $\ell \le (p - 5)/2$, which implies $k + \ell \le p - 3$. Therefore, we have the following two hamiltonian cycles in $\Cay(\overline G; \overline A)$:
	\begin{align}
	\label{C1}
	C_1 &= ( \overline b, \overline a^{-(k-1)}, \overline b, \overline c, \overline a^{-(\ell-1)}, \overline c, \overline a^{p - k - \ell - 2}) \\
\intertext{and}
	C_2 &= (\overline b, \overline a^{-(k-1)}, \overline b, \overline a, \overline c, \overline a^{-(\ell-1)}, \overline c, \overline a^{p - k - \ell - 3})
	. \end{align}
Their voltages are
	\begin{align*}
	\mathbb{V}(C_1)
	&= b a^{-(k-1)} b c a^{-(\ell-1)} c a^{p - k - \ell - 2}
	\\& = a^k \gamma \cdot a^{-(k-1)} \cdot a^k \gamma \cdot  a^\ell \gamma' \cdot  a^{-(\ell-1)} \cdot a^\ell \gamma'  \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 2}
	\\& = a^k \cdot \gamma_q \gamma_r a \gamma_q \gamma_r \cdot  a^\ell \cdot \gamma'_r \gamma'_s  a \gamma'_r \gamma'_s \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 2} \\
\intertext{and}
	\mathbb{V}(C_2)
	&= b a^{-(k-1)} b a c a^{-(\ell-1)} c a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	\\& = a^k \gamma \cdot a^{-(k-1)} \cdot a^k \gamma \cdot  a \cdot a^\ell \gamma' \cdot  a^{-(\ell-1)} \cdot a^\ell \gamma' \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	\\& = a^k \cdot \gamma_q \gamma_r a \gamma_q \gamma_r \cdot  a^{\ell+1} \cdot \gamma'_r \gamma'_s  a \gamma'_r \gamma'_s \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	. \end{align*}
In each product, the two occurrences of~$\gamma_q$ cannot cancel each other, and the two occurrences of $\gamma'_s$ cannot cancel each other (because $a$ does not invert any nontrivial element of~$G'$), so both voltages project nontrivially to $\mathcal{C}_q$ and~$\mathcal{C}_s$.

Therefore, in order to apply \cref{FGL}, it suffices to show that at least one of these voltages projects nontrivially to~$\mathcal{C}_r$. If not, then both projections are trivial, so, much as in \cref{case:notdistinct}, we have
	\begin{align*}
	a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r  a^\ell \cdot \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r  a \cdot a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	& = a^k \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma_r \cdot  a^\ell \cdot \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 2}
	\\&= \mathbb{V}(C_1)_r
	\\&= e
	\\&= \mathbb{V}(C_2)_r
	\\& = a^k \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma_r \cdot  a^{\ell+1} \cdot \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	\\& = a^k \gamma_r a \gamma_r  a^\ell \cdot a \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 3}
	, \end{align*}
so $\gamma'_r a \gamma'_r  a = a \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r$.

Now, note that $\langle \gamma'_r \rangle \triangleleft G$ (since every subgroup of the cyclic normal subgroup~$G'$ is normal), so there is some $\widehat\gamma \in \langle \gamma'_r \rangle$, such that $a \gamma'_r = \widehat\gamma a$. With this notation, the conclusion of the preceding paragraph tells us that
	$\gamma'_r \widehat\gamma a^2 = \widehat\gamma a^2 \gamma'_r$.
Since $\gamma'_r$ and $\widehat\gamma$ are in the abelian group $\langle \gamma'_r \rangle$, we know that they commute with each other, so this implies $\gamma'_r a^2 = a^2 \gamma'_r$.

However, since $\overline a$ generates~$\overline G$, and $|\overline G| = p$ is odd, we know that $\overline a^2$ also generates~$\overline G$. Hence, we see from \fullcref{squarefree}{a-commute} that $a^2$ does not centralize any nontrivial element of~$G'$. This contradicts the conclusion of the preceding paragraph.

\begin{subcase} \label{p=7}
Assume $p = 7$.
\end{subcase}
We may assume \cref{case:notdistinct} does not apply, so $1 < \ell < k \le (p - 1)/2$. Since $(p-1)/2 = (7 - 1)/2 = 3$, we conclude that $\ell = 2$ and $k = 3$.
Thus, we have
	\[ \text{$p = 7$, \ $\overline c = \overline a^2$, \ and \ $\overline b = \overline a^3$.} \]

Now, the Cayley graph $\Cay(\overline G; \overline a, \overline b, \overline c)$ is the complete graph~$K_7$, so it has \emph{many} hamiltonian cycles.
In particular, we have the hamiltonian cycle
	\[ C = (\overline c, \overline a^2, \overline c, \overline a^{-1}, \overline b, \overline a^{-1} ) . \]
Since $G'$ is a cyclic, normal subgroup of~$G$ (and $|a| = p = 7$), there is some $\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, such that $\alpha^7 \equiv 1 \pmod{r}$ and
	\[ \text{$a \, g = g^\alpha \, a$ \ for all $g \in G'$} . \]
Also, we may write $\gamma'_r = \gamma_r^x$ for some $x \in \mathbb{Z}^+$.
With this notation, the voltage of~$C$ is
	\begin{align*}
	\mathbb{V}(C)
	&= c  a^2  c a^{-1}  b  a^{-1}
	\\&= a^2 \gamma'  \cdot a^2  \cdot a^2 \gamma' \cdot a^{-1}  \cdot a^3 \gamma \cdot  a^{-1}
	\\&= a^2 \gamma'  a^4 \gamma' a^2 \gamma a^{-1}
	\\&= (\gamma')^{\alpha^2 + \alpha^6} \gamma^\alpha
	\\&= (\gamma'_r \gamma'_s)^{\alpha^2+ \alpha^6} (\gamma_q \, \gamma_r)^{\alpha}
	\\&= (\gamma_r^x \gamma'_s)^{\alpha^2+ \alpha^6} (\gamma_q \, \gamma_r)^{\alpha}
	\\&= \gamma_q^{\alpha} \, \gamma_r^{(\alpha^2 + \alpha^6)x + \alpha} \, (\gamma'_s)^{\alpha^2+ \alpha^6}
	. \end{align*}
Since $\alpha^7 \equiv 1 \pmod{r}$, it is easy to see that neither $\alpha$ nor~$\alpha^2 + \alpha^6$ is divisible by~$r$, so it is clear that $\mathbb{V}(C)$ projects nontrivially to $\mathbb{Z}_q$ and $\mathbb{Z}_s$.

Therefore, if \cref{FGL} does not apply, then this voltage projects trivially to~$\mathcal{C}_r$, which means
	\begin{align} \label{alpha}
	 (\alpha^2 + \alpha^6)x + \alpha \equiv 0 \pmod{r}
	 , \end{align}
We also have the hamiltonian cycle~$C_1$ of Equation~\eqref{C1}. If its voltage also does not generate~$G'$, then this voltage, too, projects trivially to~$\mathcal{C}_r$, which means
	\begin{align*}
	e
	&= \mathbb{V}(C_1)_r
	\\&= a^k \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma_r \cdot  a^\ell \cdot \gamma'_r a \gamma'_r  \cdot  a^{p - k - \ell - 2}
	\\&= a^3 \cdot \gamma_r a \gamma_r \cdot  a^2 \cdot \gamma_r^x a \gamma_r^x
	\\&= \gamma_r^{\alpha^3 + \alpha^4 + \alpha^6 x + \alpha^7 x}
	, \end{align*}
so
	\[ \alpha^3 + \alpha^4 + \alpha^6 x + \alpha^7 x \equiv 0 \pmod{r} . \]
Multiplying by $\alpha^4$, and recalling that $\alpha^7 \equiv 1 \pmod{r}$, we conclude that
	\[ (1 + \alpha) + \alpha^3(1 + \alpha)x  \equiv 0 \pmod{r} . \]
Dividing this equation by $1 + \alpha$ yields $1 + \alpha^3 x = 0$ (in~$\mathbb{Z}_r$), so $x = -1/\alpha^3$.
Plugging this into Equation~\eqref{alpha} yields
	$ - (\alpha^2 + \alpha^6)/\alpha^3 + \alpha = 0 $ in~$\mathbb{Z}_r$,
so $\alpha^4 - \alpha^2 + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{r}$. Recall that we also know $\alpha^7 - 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{r}$. We therefore have
	\begin{align*}
	0
	&= (\alpha^6 - \alpha^5 + \alpha^4 - \alpha^3 - 1) \cdot 0 \ - \ (\alpha^3 - \alpha^2) \cdot 0
	\\&\equiv (\alpha^6 - \alpha^5 + \alpha^4 - \alpha^3 - 1)(\alpha^4 - \alpha^2 + 1) - (\alpha^3 - \alpha^2)(\alpha^7 - 1)
		&& \pmod{r}
	\\&= -1
	. \end{align*}
This is a contradiction.

\begin{subcase}
Assume that the preceding cases do not apply.
\end{subcase}
Since \cref{case:ell} does not apply, we must have $\ell = (p-3)/2$. Since $\ell < k \le (p-1)/2$, this implies
	\[ k = \frac{p-1}{2} = 1 + \frac{p-3}{2} = 1 + \ell . \]
Therefore
	\[ \overline a \, \overline c =  \overline a \, \overline a^\ell = \overline a^{1 + \ell} = \overline a^k = \overline b . \]

Putting $c$ into the role of~$a$ will usually give us new values for $k$ and~$\ell$. Indeed, if \cref{case:ell} does not apply after this change, then either
	\[ \text{$\overline a^{\pm 1} = c^{(p-3)/2}$ \ and \ $\overline b^{\pm 1} = c^{(p-1)/2} = \overline a^{\pm 1} \, \overline c$} \]
or
	\[ \text{$\overline b^{\pm 1} = c^{(p-3)/2}$ \ and \ $\overline a^{\pm 1} = c^{(p-1)/2} = \overline b^{\pm 1} \, \overline c$} .\]
However, we have
	\[ \overline a^{-1} \, \overline c = \overline a^{\ell - 1} = \overline a^{(p - 5)/2} \notin \{\overline a^{\pm(p-1)/2}\} = \{\overline b^{\pm 1}\} \]
	and
	\[ \overline b \, \overline c = \overline a^{k + 1} = \overline a^{(p + 1)/2} \notin \{\overline a^{\pm1}\} .\]
Therefore, $\overline c^{(p-3)/2}$ must be either $\overline a$ or~$\overline b^{-1}$. Noting that (since $\overline a \, \overline c = \overline b$) we have $\overline b = \overline a \, \overline c$ and $\overline a^{-1} = \overline b^{-1} \, \overline c$, this implies that the only possibilities are that either
	\begin{align} \label{ab}
	\text{$\overline a = \overline c^{(p-3)/2}$ \ and \ $\overline b = \overline a \, \overline c = \overline{c}^{(p-1)/2}$}
	\end{align}
or
	\begin{align} \label{binvainv}
	\text{$\overline b^{-1} = \overline c^{(p-3)/2}$ \ and \ $\overline a^{-1} = \overline b^{-1} \, \overline c = \overline{c}^{(p-1)/2} $}
	. \end{align}

If \eqref{ab} holds, then
	\[ \overline a = \overline c^{(p-3)/2} = \bigl( \overline a^{(p-3)/2} \bigr)^{(p-3)/2} = \overline a^{(p-3)^2/4}, \]
so $(p-3)^2/4 \equiv 1 \pmod{p}$, so $9 \equiv 4 \pmod{p}$, which implies $p = 5$.
However, since \cref{case:notdistinct} does not apply, we know that $\overline c \neq \overline a$, so $\ell > 1$. This means $(p - 3)/2 \ge 2$, so $p \ge 7$. This is a contradiction.

So \eqref{binvainv} must hold. Then $\overline b^{-1} = \overline c^{(p-3)/2}$, so we must have
	\[ (p-3)^2/4 \equiv -(p-1)/2 \pmod{p} . \]
so $9 \equiv 2 \pmod{p}$, which implies $p = 7$. So \cref{p=7} applies.